Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 28, 2011 7:00am-7:30am PDT

7:00 am
7:01 am
>> good afternoon. i would like to call the meeting of the commission of the environment to order. >> [laughter] >> wow, that popped up. >> back to the future. >> san francisco public utilities commission. >> to order at 1:46, october 11, 2011. next item, please. >> roll call. president vietor. commissioner moran. commissioner caen. commissioner torres. i believe commissioner courtney is here and will be joining us momentarily. the next item as the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of september 27. if there are any additions, corrections, substitutions -- president vietor: you have the minutes before you.
7:02 am
>> move to approve. president vietor: there is a motion. is there a second? second. questions are comments? all those in favor? opposed. thank you. the motion carries. next -- >> the next item is public comment, an item for members of the public to speak about items that are not within the commission's jurisdiction better not on today's agenda. we have no speaker cards. president vietor: no public comments. next item. >> communications. letter summary and the advanced calendar. at this time, the commissioners of the complete set of documents and letters of rain in the ledger summary. i was not entirely sure that i sent everything to everybody, so i copied it to be sure that everything is there. if you have any comments about any items on the advanced calendar or questions or pending matters -- president vietor: any questions or comments on the letter
7:03 am
summary or the calendar? next item, please. >> next item would be any new business any commissioner might want to propose. president vietor: new business? hearing none, next item. >> reported the general manager. >> good afternoon, ed harrington, general manager. i have no items to report. i am here to make note that in previous meetings, there have been in discussion by commissioner moran to have workshops at times, and we have items that need it thoughts. we're trying that today. item 14 is a workshop to the commission on land use policy. i would love to hear your feedback after that to see if those are the kinds of workshops and the way to present its, and i would like to get your thoughts on whether that works for you. today, we will try that and see if it works. we're trying for something closer to the kind of discussion we had at our retreat, where there is more resolved
7:04 am
conversation before we have actually britain's sunday down as a policy. president vietor: with the idea be that we would have a workshop and then at the subsequent meeting we would have a resolution or action item necessary or recommendation to come forward? >> we would headache recommendation, resolution, policies subsequent at the next meeting. it would dictate how much information we are crafting. but it really is to have that broader discussion, more free- forming kind of discussion, as opposed to being stuck with something already written down. there are other topics like that that might be useful to have it in that fashion. president vietor: any other questions or comments on the general managers' report? >> thank you for including that. my hope for that, frankly, is that it can be an opportunity from time to time for us to get in, as programs are being formulated, that we have the yes or no amendment, and we have a
7:05 am
discussion beforehand. we will see how it goes. president vietor: but thank you vietor thank you. next. >> the report of the citizens advisory committee. but i have been advised that mr. alex lantsberg was detained at asked that the side of the continue to a future meeting. so the next item would be the consent calendar. all matters listed here and constitute a consent calendar considered to be retained by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single one of the commission. a, approve the plans and as avocations and award water enterprise multi-your local water repair and replacement program and department of public works pavement renovation program funded contract wd-2456 eighth-chance -- and pavement renovation on mission street from 17th street to 21st street, on 19th street from shotwell
7:06 am
street to valencia's street, and on san carlos street from sycamore street to 21st street, the amount of $2,428,000 to the lowest qualified responsible and responsive better, m squared construction to perform the water main replacement, a pavement, and curb ramp renovation work. b, approve the plans of specific and award water enterprise program funded agreement wd-2661, 4 hetch hetchy regional water system. and the conjuration credit for species and california tiger salamanders in mitigation for the san joaquin pipeline system project and authorize the general manager san francisco public utilities commission to negotiate and execute a professional service agreement with wildlands. accept work performed by melton cascade for water enterprise
7:07 am
water system improvement program funded contract hh-914, roselle crossover a perfect, modification number 10, increasing the contract with the time expansion and authorized the final payment to the contractor. does any commissioner was to remove any of these items, a through d? president vietor: no removal from the consent calendar. is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar? >> so moved. >> second. president vietor: any public comment? >> we have no cards. president vietor: all those in favor? opposed? motion passes. >> next item, a decision to authorize the general manager to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco arts commission for the process of defining their working relationship and responsibilities of each department for planning, funding, and commissioning our work and supporting the arts
7:08 am
commission-based community arts programming in accordance with section 3.19 of the san francisco administrative code. hold on. sorry. there. >> hello, commissioners. general managers for external affairs. i can be brief. this item came before you all at the june 28 commission meeting. at that meeting, you gave us feedback, both on the resolution and ask us to bring the mou back to you and give direction for the general manager to move forward with that mou. since that meeting in june, the mou has been developed but with the puc staff as well as staff from the arts commission does death internally have begun to meet across the enterprise to begin to identify priorities for
7:09 am
arts enrichment spending based on places having impact. i am happy to answer any questions that you may have today. it is pretty straightforward. commissioner torres: there was a commissioner -- there was an issue was supportive of. making sure the whatever arts works better commissioner given at least some priority to local artists. >> we have taken a completely to heart. so the arts memorandum of understanding and the resolution to speak to the fact that one of the priorities and the resolution is to support local artists. both to support local artists to collaborate with other city agency his efforts, so we can leverage the other efforts that may be happening, whether it is redevelopment or within the school district, and focusing on places where the puc is having impact. commissioner torres: thank you.
7:10 am
commissioner caen: i have a couple of questions. as i understand reading this, we will not have any temporary -- we will not contribute any moneys to temporary art exhibits. is that correct? >> that is not correct. my understanding, and the general manager should jump in because he has been closely working on at this as well, is that if we are to use bond money, it needs to be allocated to a prominent art. if we are using non-bond money, it can be used for temporary art. the idea is that even as we think about what prominent art is, we have had conversations that the city attorney's office and with leadership within the puc in the arts commission around our definition of permanent art. one could imagine that we would work with an organization, yes
7:11 am
or pulling this out of the air, like may be the bayview opera house that provides recognition for committee members in the southeast. the idea is that we could -- they could produce permanent are they could go into puc buildings and facilities that we own, for example it would not be permanent are like the big buddha outside city hall, for example, but we would see it as permanent. commissioner caen: ok. my second question is, how is it going to operate in terms of if they commission some artwork that is not pertinent to puc how are the checks and balances going to work? >> we have it quite a few checks and balances in place. the resolution says everything from -- that the puc has full discretion over how the
7:12 am
resources get allocated. so it would require puc approves all before our resources get spent. so there is that part. each year, we will come up with an arts plan that will be driven by puc staff with regard to the priorities. then the arts commission will develop a plan that then gets approved by the puc staff. so there are those to the mechanisms. the third is that there's also an out in the resolution in the that not all -- not all of the arts resources have to be commissioned. for example, if we wanted to partner with the san francisco foundation, that is one example where they're putting money into an organization that we would also leverage, for example, that we could do that directly without having to go through the arts commission. i think we have put a lot of thought, working with the city attorney's staff, are around how to make sure that there are checks and balances and that is really based on puc priorities
7:13 am
in places where we have impact and to leverage these resources. one of the question that was raised by to this meeting, via e-mail, was how much money we were spending our arts enrichment. $7.8 million have been allocated to arts enrichment. out of that, $4 has been paid. that has gone out research to the arts commission. there is $2.6 and to be paid this year, and an additional $1.4 million after this year. we're not under any requirement to spend the money. we do not need to spend $2.6 million this year if it is not justified. >> commissioners, in the mou before you, is is that the art money should be spent with the following priorities. it says it should be in neighborhoods and geographic areas where the puc projects and operations affect the area. the second is they must have an nexus and connection to the puc
7:14 am
operation functions. so it really goes to the issues you have raised. commissioner caen: good, thank you. >> and i want to thank all of the commissioners, playing a role getting this through. from memory, i remember having been on the commission, and commissioner caen mentioned the art. at the time, i have no idea which was talking about until a couple months ago. so thank you for your leadership on this. commissioner caen: i also want to extend a big thank you to you for picking this ball of, because it has been something that has been on the radar but we have not really looked at and paid attention to. i think there's great possibility and opportunity for the local artist communities that are being affected by some of our projects to do real good and leveraging opportunities. thank you for all your hard work on this. commissioner moran: the $7.4 million, is that to date? >> it is to date in the most recent wsip kinds of big
7:15 am
projects. it is not all time back 20 to 30 years. >> wsip focused. commissioner moran: for the capital program that we're looking at for the next 10 years, do you know how much money comes out of that for the arts? >> it is hard to know since we have not landed on the number. it would be 2% of all above ground. >> 2% above ground, but when you look at the southeast waste water treatment plant, for example, that is when you get to the pipes above ground and below ground and they have different rules. we would have to work it out with the art commission what we think the appropriate amount is. we're talking potentially $6 billion in the sewer system improvement program, something like half of that might be eligible for it. we have clearly done a lot of work underground. it is the channel and those things that probably would not generate the artwork. commissioner moran: that would
7:16 am
be $20 million? >> it could be very significant. that is why we wanted to make sure we had this in place. commissioner moran: and i was glad to see that the local artist was put in there, too. it makes it a much -- it is tapping an artist in the city. >> definitely. >> tough being an artist. commissioner moran: this makes it a little bit easier. >> a member of the arts commission has been providing a lot of leadership and is also here if you want to hear from them at all. president vietor: it seemed like there was a lot of interest in the southeast community on this topic. i have a question on our reach to the community and whether this will get to the southeast commission. >> that is already under way. we have been having one-on-ones with organizations in the southeast sector. as far as i define priorities for the arts commission to work with us, there is conversations happening about an oral history
7:17 am
project as well as some other projects with a view opera house and others. president vietor: great, glad to hear that. i hope that can continue, because there was a lot of interest in this project. do we have comments or questions from the commissioners on this item? >> ok, thank you. president vietor: we have a resolution before us, i believe. is there a motion? would anyone like to introduce a motion to get this on the table? >> so moved. >> second. president vietor: thank you. now we will take public comment on this item. >> good afternoon. david. i raised concerns about this at the meeting at southeast. i am pleased that there was discussion there and your discussion just now and the staff work that juliet referenced. i think the item before you today is fully vetted and appropriator i am very supportive. i would note from my experience that it is unusual for an entity
7:18 am
like the commission, for the puc, to take on an art more in- house, rather than say let's cut a check and let the arts commission deal with it. the city department historically has been inconsistent in dealing with art. is making this a big deal, as you have, is really a significant accomplishment. i wanted to know that. i also agree with president vietor's suggestion of bringing this formally before the southeast facilities commission so we can hear it, not just one- on-one, but in the community. i am very supportive. thank you. president vietor: thank you. if there is a way to formalize that and see if that can be part of their agenda, i think that would be really great. if they want us to come and speak to it, if you can extend that invitation, that would be great. hello. >> good afternoon, commissioners but i am it jill from the arts commission. very nice to be here. i am very pleased with the
7:19 am
status of the mou. we have work very closely with juliet and general manager ed harrington and the city attorney's. the arts commission is very enthusiastic and optimistic about the new broader definition of art in richmond, and we think it will bring a richer array of art work and art endeavors and art undertakings to the residents of the city. we're very pleased, and thank you for this opportunity and for your continued trust in working with us. if i may answer any questions, please let me know. president vietor: thank you. thanks so much for your support with this. we are excited to be working collaborative lee on this. any other public comment? all those in favor question mark -- all those in favor of adopting the resolution? oppose? motion passes. >> item 11, discuss possible
7:20 am
action that approving november -- amendment number 1 to water enterprise agreement for the purchase and sale of recycled water, and working with recycled water facilities with the north san mateo county sanitation district. the proposed amendment increases the funding for permits needed upstream of the point of delivery for the harding park recycled water project, increasing the estimated cost. the original estimate prepared by november 2009 was significantly lower than the two bids received, and authorize the general manager of the san francisco puc to negotiate and execute this amendment. president vietor: hello. how're you today? >> assistant general manager for water. this item is an amendment to an agreement between san francisco and the north san mateo county sanitation districts. to the part of a bigger project, the harding part recycled water project, which is roughly $10 million project. the numbers are very small
7:21 am
piece of the project. these are for improvements that actually will apply to the north san material waste water treatment facility, which then feeds into the pipeline that will deliver water to harding park, hopefully beginning in april 2012. basically, the engineers adjusted for about five different models in their system. it basically left them with the bids. we're recommending modifying the agreement between us and north san mateo county sanitation district for a $209,000. >> so moved. >> second. president vietor: any public comment on this item? all those in favor? opposed? thank you. next item. >> item 12, discussion possible action to authorize the general manager of the sfpuc to execute on behalf of the city and county and memorandum of understanding with the san francisco housing authority for an amount to be paid to the sfpuc not to exceed
7:22 am
what hundred $50,000 during each fiscal years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 to provide condition as asthma, operation and maintenance services, and emergency services for potrero and ex commenters, sonny delaware, alice b. griffith and alemany family developments. >> good afternoon. general manager for power. this memorandum of understanding is before you, this resolution would allow us to continue to provide the condition assessment and operation and maintenance and emergency services to the san francisco housing authority five locations that were just read. we have provided that through a memorandum of understanding in the prior to the fiscal years and with the authority sought here today if granted, we would continue that relationship. we do have a typo. it indicates it would be one haggard $50,000 worth of
7:23 am
services for each of two fiscal years. each aspect is incorrect. it is $150,000 for services in total for those two fiscal years. with that change, i ask for your support. happy to answer questions. president vietor: i know a bit about the hopesf rebild project. is this related to that, and is it going to continue? >> it is not related to that. those are rebuilds of existing facilities. this just maintains the existing facilities as they stand today. we're looking at the role we might play in the hopesf projects, but this is not related to those. president vietor: ok, any questions, commissioners? >> so moved. commissioner courtney: we do me a favor and just described the
7:24 am
services for us? >> yes, the housing authority properties that are listed here have above ground electrical distribution systems. so our high-voltage electricians under this memorandum of understanding would provide an assessment of those systems to the extent of the housing authority needs of their skills that to provide assessment. we will provide routine maintenance of those systems, and in the event there is a power outage associated with those systems, the housing authority will rely on our power, our high voltage crew, to provide the corrective actions that are necessary to restore service. commissioner courtney: is it safe to say that the public utilities commission is letting out the current employees to the housing authorities? is that correct? >> yes, we're making our
7:25 am
current skilled laborers, skilled electricians, high- voltage trade electricians, available to them. i would not say lending, because they are going to be charged for it. but yes, using our existing resources. president vietor: is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. president vietor: all of those in favor? >> we had no speaker cards on this item. >> opposed? motion carries. >> item 13, discussion possible action to approve an additional increase and a previously approved contract cost contingency in the amount of dollars in13,9018,197 for water enterprise, water system improvement program funding construction contract, number 5 east bay region. another is the general manager to consider it for a permit in
7:26 am
approved modifications to the contract for a total amount of to $87,671,14447. >> assistant general manager for of infrastructure. as it was pointed out in the quarterly report, this is the bay division pipeline number 5. some unexpected additional field conditions were identified. so this is to increase the contingency to cover those unanticipated conditions. they fall into four categories. the first one is unforeseen side conditions, which we have look that has built, and they were incomplete or missing. so that is about half of the $13.9 million. the other category is an additional restoration areas where we have to mitigate. the third category is site
7:27 am
contamination within right away, which is about $4 million. and we have environmental litigation, which is about $700,000 of costs that we have identified. with this, it brings the amount of the contract to $89,671,0044. so that is the purpose of this, to increase the contingencies. president vietor: questions? commissioner moran: i do not have a question on the item itself. i do have a question about the reporting. i went back and looked at that report, and the narrative in the quarterly report does talk about all of those work items. but on the financial and
7:28 am
schedule part, it says everything is going according to plan. with that, i expect the contingency would be taken out of a project level contingency. you're proposing here that it comes out of the program contingency. i am asking for clarification on that. also, is there an issue on the reporting that we need to deal with? >> we are asking for it to come out of the program contingency because it is over and above what was already in the budget. the good news is that the engineer's estimate was $97 million. with all of this, we're still only a $89 million. the bad news is that the trend portion of that report that you got was not exactly where it should have been. so we have been talking to the staff about why that would be the case. and if there is something we need to do on that early warning system to make sure we do not have this kind of occurrence again. but that report should have shown that there was a negative trend. president vietor: other
7:29 am
questions or comments? all those in favor of moving item number 13? >> i believe we need a motion. president vietor: is there a motion? >> aye. >> second. president vietor: any public comment? >> no speaker cards. >> all those in favor? opposed? motion carries. next item, please. >> item 14, this is land use discussion. we did put a note in their sane discussion will be limited to 30 minutes or such other direction set by the commission. when we talk about doing this kind of workshops, you indicated you like to have a time certain. so at the beginning of the discussion are during it, you can take your time and weekend time it for you. item 14,
left
right